Free Energy: Philippine DOE Verifies Self-Charging Electric Car

Originally posted by FarArcher
Not long ago, all the physics world was attacking a gentleman for proposing amorphous semiconductors, as they loudly ridiculed him, his idea, and stated that amorphous semiconductors absolutely, positively violated the laws of physics.

Care to show us all these "attacks" or is it just more of your bull#

reply to post by FarArcher


Again - the proof is in the pudding.

I'm not going to sit here and say that some form of over-unity is impossible. I have a number of my own ideas on the subject about how to try and achieve it. I'm just not convinced it's going to be as simple or easy as playing around with magnets and electric motors.

I could be wrong, and, indeed - a number of my own ideas stem from a basis in electromagnetics (though generally attempt to push the extreme limits of Planck units - very high power stuff) - but in the context of generating extremes that would not normally be seen in nature.

But I'm not going to join the cult of free-energy following. I'm more than willing to listen to other ideas - but am not really going to wet myself over the next Knight in Shining Armor who has a degree and a black box of magic to wage war against the energy goons and hidebound physicists. Until that black box really does something magical - I'll be continuing to design my home with multiple solar/geotherm/and fusion power systems (by time I have the kind of money to build the type of house I want to, we'd damned well better have fusion power generators that can fit in a sub-basement - I can't be expected to resolve all of your all's problems ).

Otherwise, discussions on the theoretical physics behind these devices is often a rather moot point. Over-unity is a serious contention to the known and tested principles of physics. Debating the physics of a device that cannot be known, but claims to function in ways current physics cannot really address is like trying to make sense of a picture painted with colors you cannot see, or enjoy a meal with flavors you cannot taste.

As such - we can debate the physics of these devices all day. They either work, or they don't. Our ability to understand, define, or predict their behavior is not required.

I agree.

What's being done already doesn't need to be understood or even proven.

After all, some things are best kept private.

Even if you conducted your experiment to prove a "free energy" device, and you did so in front of Congress, America, and it was conducted by representatives of every National Laboratory, you'd never, ever hear the end of it.

Everyone, every publication, every physics society, every physics department, every notable physicist, and every "debunker" would demand they be able to conduct their own experiments to validate what's already been done, tested, and certified.

So no.

**** 'em.

Still nothing on the DOE website. Not a trace. Can we put this one to rest now?

Originally posted by FarArcher
Even if you conducted your experiment to prove a "free energy" device, and you did so in front of Congress, America, and it was conducted by representatives of every National Laboratory, you'd never, ever hear the end of it.

Very true - you would win a Nobel prize, would be very rich, would be feted everywhere as the man who saved the world etc etc.

Of course the frauds refuse to demonstrate their hoax's in front of scientists etc as they know they would be shown up as frauds!

reply to post by john_bmth


Nothing On the doe website? Why would there be? Do you see other patents there? There are letters from doe published by the inventor. It has been confirmed in the media and by doe employees. Maybe you should try reading the article and using common sense. Also this isn't a closed system people and it has nothing really to do with magnet perpetual motors. You all look like idiots because you are arguing without looking at how the man has done anything. Why dont you read his explaination than try to debunk it. Have any of you heard of electromotive systems and Maxwell's law? Thermodynamics refers to mechanical energy and closed systems. Not one where energy is added. Come on people use your brain before you argue just to argue.

By the way didn't Einstein blow away the laws of Newtonian physics and previous explanations of the universe? What about the first time physicists used the electron microscope? They certainly didn't expect to find atoms in motion.

Like another poster mentioned. Magnets themselves are in a
State of perpetual motion. Or at least their electrons are. I think most of you pretend to be smart but use google as your brain.

reply to post by Movescamp


The only sites reporting this are "zero point energy" sites. Hardly credible. News coverage is NOT a credible source for such a story. Why would it be? They aren't scientists. Either way, I thought the mass media was a tool of the "PTB" to suppress "ZPE"? Regardless, there is nothing from the source that really matters: the DOE. We only have what the inventor says and what some news report says. Steorn go lots of media coverage yet their claims were not supported by independent testing (or even their own testing). Your standards for proof must be very low if you accept unsubstantiated claims that cannot be verified by the supposed source of the “testing”, namely the DOE. And what are you on about magnets being an example of "perpeptual motion"? They're clearly not, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of science will know.

reply to post by dereks


No You certainly wouldn't. You lack of historical understanding is showing up. Do you know who jd rockefellor is? Or jp Morgan, Westinghouse? Any of the energy players at the turn of the century into ww1.

Didn't Obama get a Nobel prize?

It's pretty obvious why efficient energy has come to pass. The market doesn't want it. The people who direct the market don't want it. Currency value and oil go hand in hand. These type of machines will destroy the current economic system. Plain and simple. If any of you want to have a discussion about economics, the value of currency, who controls the markets, and the energy/media monopolies I would be happy to oblige. Once you undrerstand even on a non conspiracy bases how every countries currency is tied to oil and energy you will realize why "free" energy is a big big problem for the governments of the world.

The awakening is starting but we aren't there yet. The powers that came to the world through oil and energy vanderbilts, rothchilds, rockefellors, arab monarchy, Russian oligarchy, british, etc are still in control and direct the economy by hoarding and buying resources.

reply to post by john_bmth


Zero point energy sites? You are seriously jaded here bud. So what proof do you need? Why don't you be credible and call the doe? Get an interpreter. You have no proof it doesn't work. The electrons of a magnet are constantly trading with electrons in the metal they are sticking to. Have you watched the video? Have you read the explanation. Can you debunk the theory or did god just tell you it doesn't work.
Do you understand economics and why cheap alternative energy would destroy currency.

No my friend it's your science that needs work. I install home automation systems and go to trade shows all over the world. You have no idea what is out there I can tell by your ridiculous bias towards denying anything that doesn't fit your world view. Why don't you read the explanation of how it works, watch the video on how he does it, than let's debate electrical engineering? Or will you be over your head than?

The other thing I want to mention is other university (he is a professor) phds have looked at his invention. And where would you present this info in a biology website?

Peswiki is a credible website.

Ohh, another battery powered free-energy device! This is soooo exciting...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Seriously, if they have they generate more energy than is put in, then remove the power source close the loop and watch it run for ever. Anything else is just a big pile of pffffttt

reply to post by dereks

I told Arie DeGeus for three years that he needed to shut his mouth and keep quiet. I told Arie of the dangers, and I told him that he would not be allowed to do things the way he wanted - publicly.

I told him at every opportunity, but like so many others, he didn't believe he was vulnerable, and believe that he was too smart. I pointed out that he was the sole survivor of his trio - Mallove and I can't remember his name right now - were killed.

His trio worked together at MIT. They later did corporate research together, and they stayed in contact somewhat. Mallove died in a "burglary" gone bad in an empty house, and the other gentleman yelled he's been poisoned just before he died.

You believe what you want to. It's a mighty brave man who can't do **** that can tell others how it should be done.

It's a bold man whose butt isn't personally on the line to make all kinds of rational decisions.

So, Arie calls me, tells me he's on his way to Europe with a stopover, he'll sign the European licensing agreements, and when he gets back, he was coming here, and that he'd see me in a few weeks.

I tell him to be careful.

Next day, I get a call. Arie's dead.

So don't tell me how it should be done. Don't tell me that folks who can do things never make things public. Don't tell me that there are just lots of claims and then excuses.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by FarArcher
Next day, I get a call. Arie's dead.

Your point?

So don't tell me how it should be done. Don't tell me that folks who can do things never make things public. Don't tell me that there are just lots of claims and then excuses.

If people are doing things and not making them public, then the public won't know about them, usually (if they are any good at keeping their secrets, secret). Right?

But if we the public are hearing about the claims, it's because they aren't doing a good job of keeping the claims secret. I don't claim to know about things I never hear about.

Regarding the claims we hear about, yes, there are nothing but excuses, apparently even including death. Keely founded his motor company in 1872 and if he hadn't died and was still alive today, he STILL wouldn't have a working motor.

The topic of this thread is a very public claim. And I don't see any evidence of anything special.

Interesting .....to say the least.

I think that in all 7 or so pages of cyber rambling. No one mentions the key component of this invention and that is the mentioning of the use of Super Capacitors in conjunction with the use of a coil ?

"Another battery powered free energy device " ?


It's been a while for me but Anyone who's studied basic physics recalls the right hand rule AND that inductors and capacitors work opposite of one another and are often used in parallel, hence charging and or energizing one another.
Almost like like that of an ignition coil firing a spark plug in an engine. ( Another Tesla invention by the way)

For starters, The 12 V battery is necessary to keep the coil generating it's magnetic field across the super capacitor as well as providing 12 volts for the controlling circuitry. He mentions the use of pulse width modulation. This synchs the pulses of DC energy to that of the timing or discharge rate of the super capacitors. Sorry I can't get into details at the moment. but is an intrinsic part of what the inventor is doing here.

What the hell is a super capacitor you might ask ?

The key difference between super capacitors vs traditional ones is the use of electric fields as a dielectric vs the traditional capacitors using dielectric material in which to store charge. Using electric fields which allows the super caps to store more energy longer. Almost like that of a quick charging battery.

Though they cannot store as much energy as a battery for example. They can be stacked and wired in series to create the necessary desired voltage. Which is where those blue electrolytic capacitors come into play.

In essence, Super capacitors are the akin to a really quick charging battery and were actually first used some time ago to replacing batteries necessary to start very large motors as in Tanks and Submarine Diesel engines.

THis is where the magic occurs. The longer storage time allows more potential to build which is then shared with the standard blue electrolytic capacitors where he had his volt meter measuring.

IN this case, The current from the Super Capacitors is wired in parallel with the traditional electrolytic capacitors wired in series allowing them to accumulate this voltage potential essentially creating a charger or power supply from the standpoint of the motor.
So in a block diagram, the fore mentioned coil, super capacitors and standard capacitors would equate to a big battery. A very quick charging one.

This is also why he was discharging the last capacitor in the row of series beer can like capacitors. Each capacitor in series was discharging it's charge in current, to charge the next capacitor in series..

But as far as the motor was concerned , due to being wired in parallel to this entire bank of capacitors, these capacitors look just like any DC battery source providing around 300volts of energy. (thats what the chart was comparing by the way this source vs a traditional power supply and hence the over unity numbers)

Ultra capacitors are the future of battery technology. Due to the Ultra capacitors ability to store and generate charge used to charge the batteries it is already in use in Automotive regenerative braking systems used to store and charge the onboard batteries.

Read up on super capacitors aka Ultra Capacitors and expand your mind.

For those interested, here's an article from Popular Mechanics.

www.popularmechanics.com...

As well as an MIT based startup who has revolutionized the super capacitor and created the "Ultra Capacitor" using nano technology.

www.fastcapsystems.com...

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Ohh, another battery powered free-energy device! This is soooo exciting...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Seriously, if they have they generate more energy than is put in, then remove the power source close the loop and watch it run for ever. Anything else is just a big pile of pffffttt

You are gonna need a COP of at least 6 to close the loop, only a marginal over unity is
not enough

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Care to elaborate?

For a circuit to be operating at unity, it is operating at no loss of power. This works in both transmission and conversion of energy (as well as storage/retrieval). A speaker functioning at unity is ideal - all of the power transmitted to the speaker is used to reproduce sound with no losses to resistance, eddy currents in the magnet, etc. (There is another use of "unity" in audio electronics that refers to amplifiers, and is really a poor use of the term - but it is used and should not be confused with this example).

If I have a coil, capacitor, or some combination thereof, and put energy into it, and then get it out at unity - as much power as I put in, I got out. There will be losses in the transmission of that energy, but that will be mostly negligible and simple measurements and calculations will show the device to be operating at, or -very- close to unity. This, in and of itself, would be a highly significant discovery/invention.

For something functioning at over-unity, even if it is not at such an extent as to overcome the power-losses of non-ideal components, it would be easily measured and confirmed, even if only in the scale of picowatts.

www.zdnet.com...

So, while a small over-unity effect may not be strong enough to operate closed-loop, it should certainly be able to demonstrate itself to be, at the very least, operating at unity.

reply to post by Aim64C
Yes I don't know why 2.0 wouldn't be enough to run, and even 1.1 should be enough to win a Nobel prize for proving the existing laws of physics false.

reply to post by nh_ee

I think that in all 7 or so pages of cyber rambling. No one mentions the key component of this invention and that is the mentioning of the use of Super Capacitors in conjunction with the use of a coil ?

Congratulations. You've now entered AC circuitry - more specifically, the "tank" resonant LC circuit.

This is generally covered within the first semester of basic electronics courses.

It's been a while for me but Anyone who's studied basic physics recalls the right hand rule AND that inductors and capacitors work opposite of one another and are often used in parallel, hence charging and or energizing one another.

This is a bit misleading. They do not charge or energize each other. They merely pass energy back and forth between each other. The electrostatics of the capacitor cause it to attempt to maintain a steady voltage. The electromagnetic properties of the inductor cause it to attempt to maintain a steady current. This is why inductors have a "voltage kick" and are often used in simple series DC-DC converters (isolated varieties use a flyback utilizing a related principle). Capacitors have a "surge current" - they will 'dump' vast amounts of power very quickly in the form of a high electric current. Inductors will generate very high voltages - enough to arc through open air.

When the two are connected in parallel - only one can be charging or discharging at any given time. The magnetic field of the inductor collapses and creates a reverse-current that charges the electrostatic field of the capacitor. As the inductor drains the last of its power, the capacitor again reverses the flow of current and charges the inductor.

In an ideal world - with perfect inductors and perfect capacitors and wires - this exchange would occur at unity (no power lost). The real world is a little less forgiving - but high quality resonant circuits have been used in power supplies, radio, and clocks for decades - I recall being told in our schooling that a research group in the 60s or 70s built a high-quality silver inductor and capacitor in a tank circuit - charged it, and then disconnected it. It continues to resonate to this day (though it is not doing any work - and is operating below unity, so it will -eventually- cease).

Almost like like that of an ignition coil firing a spark plug in an engine.

Something, but not quite. The coil is 'charged' with the current from the battery (or alternator) - this builds a magnetic field around the coil. When the power is disconnected the field begins to collapse. This builds a voltage potential across the conductor comprising the coil (which are usually only separated by the spark gap). If circumstances allow, current will flow between those two points - driven by hundreds, if not tens of thousands of volts.

For starters, The 12 V battery is necessary to keep the coil generating it's magnetic field across the super capacitor as well as providing 12 volts for the controlling circuitry. He mentions the use of pulse width modulation. This synchs the pulses of DC energy to that of the timing or discharge rate of the super capacitors. Sorry I can't get into details at the moment. but is an intrinsic part of what the inventor is doing here.

Pulse width modulation is the digital version of frequency modulation (FM).

It's pretty simple. I have a frequency of 60 hertz. That means the power goes "high" and "low" sixty times in a second. Presuming I have a square-wave form suited to digital use (and often used in control of light electromagnetic components in the 30+ kilohertz range), my circuit is going to be "on" half the time, and "off" half the time (on when it goes "high" and off when it goes low) - this is a symmetrical 'pulse.'

All pulse-width modulation does is vary the length of time the circuit is "on" or "off" within each pulse.



This is your unmodified square-wave. Pretty simple.



This is pulse-width modulation in accordance with your average sine-wave. Notice how the pulse timings are offset "like an accordion" to correspond to the sine-wave.

Pulse width modulation is used quite frequently in electromotive controls, communication equipment, and audio devices (some of the better stereo systems on the market today use pulse-width modulation to reproduce a higher range of sounds, more accurately, from a given speaker).

It's not magic. It's really pretty basic.

The key difference between super capacitors vs traditional ones is the use of electric fields as a dielectric vs the traditional capacitors using dielectric material in which to store charge. Using electric fields which allows the super caps to store more energy longer. Almost like that of a quick charging battery.

There's nothing really new or magical about it. It's just a revision of the dielectric material that manipulates electric fields to allow much less space between the plates. It's kind of like what solid-state diodes and transistors did to the world of radios.

EDLCs do not have a conventional dielectric. Rather than two separate plates separated by an intervening substance, these capacitors use "plates" that are in fact two layers of the same substrate, and their electrical properties, the so-called "electrical double layer", result in the effective separation of charge despite the vanishingly thin (on the order of nanometers) physical separation of the layers. The lack of need for a bulky layer of dielectric permits the packing of plates with much larger surface area into a given size, resulting in high capacitances in practical-sized packages.

EDLCs have much higher power density than batteries. Power density combines the energy density with the speed that the energy can be delivered to the load. Batteries, which are based on the movement of charge carriers in a liquid electrolyte, have relatively slow charge and discharge times. Capacitors, on the other hand, can be charged or discharged at a rate that is typically limited by current heating of the electrodes. So while existing EDLCs have energy densities that are perhaps 1/10 that of a conventional battery, their power density is generally 10 to 100 times as great (see diagram, right).

THis is where the magic occurs. The longer storage time allows more potential to build which is then shared with the standard blue electrolytic capacitors where he had his volt meter measuring.

.... And you ran off the cliff.

All super-capacitors do is allow a capacitor to store much more power in the same given area. They don't change the physics of the circuit anymore than adding a larger capacitor would.

While the inductor generates the 'kick' necessary to charge the electrolytic capacitors to substantially higher voltages than 12 volts - and the circuit is able to deliver more power to the wheel than the 12-volt battery can alone - this should not be confused with some over-unity effect. By using pulse-width modulation to control the motor, high amounts of torque can be applied in short bursts while giving the circuit time to recoup its losses before the next pulse. This allows for very high efficiencies within electric drive systems.

This is nothing new. It's one of the principles of servo and stepper motors and their controllers.

But as far as the motor was concerned , due to being wired in parallel to this entire bank of capacitors, these capacitors look just like any DC battery source providing around 300volts of energy. (thats what the chart was comparing by the way this source vs a traditional power supply and hence the over unity numbers)

I think someone is confused.... I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make... you're confused about the intricacies of AC power measurements (true power vs apparent power vs complex power vs reactive power), or the entire thread is confused about what the guy actually meant when he was comparing "traditional power supply" versus "his power supply" (which would simply be a display of how much more efficient his was, as opposed to demonstrating over-unity or magical self-charging abilities).

I'm starting to think the tin-foil-hat club put words in this guy's mouth.